GOBINDRAM TAPARIA,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO, WD-1, RAIGANJ, RAIGANJ

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 29.10.2004 declaring total income of Rs.1,33,580/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 17.11.2006, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.10,58,615/- after making various additions. Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same on the ground that it had been signed by the authorized representative of ./2015 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 2 of 3 the assessee. He also noted that even the other documents filed by the assessee along with the Form No. 35 were not signed by the assessee but the same were signed by his authorized representative. Against the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the Tribunal set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to him to give the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect in Form No. 35 and to decide the appeal after removal of the defect by the assessee on merit after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. As per the direction of the Tribunal, opportunity was given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee by fixing the case on 27.01.2015. However, nobody attended on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the said date as well as on the subsequent dates when the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 27.02.2015 and 07.08.2015. As noted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order, the assessee also failed to remove the defects in the appeal memo despite the fact that notices of the hearings were duly served. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has again come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee could not attend the hearings fixed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) due to serious ailments because of which he was bed-ridden in his home town at Sujangarh, Rajasthan and has also filed an affidavit in support, there is no other evidence filed by her to corroborate what is stated in the affidavit in support of the assessee’s case. She has also not been able to offer any satisfactory explanation as regards the failure of the assessee even to remove the defects in the appeal memo filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals) despite a specific opportunity given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as per the direction of ./2015 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 3 of 3 the Tribunal. In my opinion, it is thus a case of negligence and carelessness on the part of the assessee and in the absence of any sufficient or reasonable cause for the failure of the assesese to comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the hearing of the assessee on three occasions, I am of the view that the ld. CIT(Appeals) was fully justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. In that view of the matter, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and upholding the same, I dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.